HIRDEY RAM vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18962/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01089832201820 January 2020Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It quashed the impugned order passed by the Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the application under Section 264 of the Act on merits, as per law. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the High Court in the case of Kewal Krishan Jain, which the revenue could not distinguish or deny the applicability of. The principle is that if a High Court has set aside a similar order, the same principle should apply. The issue of whether the Commissioner *should* have entertained the Section 264 application was decided in favor of the petitioner, leading to a remand for decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hirdey Ram, challenged an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon, rejecting his application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection was based on the ground that an alternative remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that this rejection was erroneous. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of a previous High Court judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that an appeal remedy was available, thereby precluding the petitioner from seeking revision. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner relied on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.1818 of 1995, titled Kewal Krishan Jain Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar, decided on 11.10.2013, arguing that a similar order had been set aside by this Court. Revenue's contentions: The learned counsel for the revenue was not in a position to deny the applicability of the judgment cited by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
CWP No.18962 of 2018 -1- 206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18962 of 2018 Date of Decision: 20.01.2020 Hirdey Ram Petitioner Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. **** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): [1] By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Commissioner rejecting the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity 'the Act'] on the ground that remedy of appeal was available to him. [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in CWP No.1818 of 1995 titled as Kewal Krishan Jain Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar decided on 11.10.2013 to contend that this Court has set aside the

similar order. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.22 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

CWP No.18962 of 2018 -2- [3] Learned counsel for the revenue is not in a position to deny the applicability of the abovesaid judgment. [4] In the circumstances, the petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure P-13) i.e. order under Section 264 of the Act is quashed. The Commissioner of Income Tax is directed to decide the application under Section 264 of the Act, on merits, as per law. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE January 20, 2020

pankaj baweja

1.

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.22 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →